John Whelan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, who I know to be a fair-minded man who takes an interest in debate in this House. Even at this late stage, I ask him to hear us out in a meaningful way and to convey our observations and concerns to Cabinet. It is not too late for a change of tack.

I admit that the Seanad is a stacked deck. It is a creature of the Government of the day. As constituted, it may not be fit for purpose. Not one Member or anyone else to whom I have spoken as part of the general discourse on the issue wishes to retain the Seanad as it is. The Seanad is over 90 years old. Any organisation which has been in existence that long is overdue for reform. All we are seeking is an opportunity for that to be considered. Senator Ó Murchú is correct to say that this policy was a whim and a flight of fancy in the heat of battle during a general election. It was not thought through. I suggest that not only was there no plan B, there was no plan A. No one knew what the game plan was at all. That is abundantly clear from the reasons which have been set out to promote the idea that the Seanad requires outright abolition. They ring hollow and are threadbare.

When the Taoiseach was here last week, I formed the view that his own heart was no longer in the idea. I am an admirer of the Taoiseach who is an honest and honourable man. I appeal to him, therefore, at this late stage to step back and provide us with the opportunity to have a referendum in due course. When he spoke to the House last week, he engaged in a pedestrian amble through the sections of the Bill. It was not convincing and he did not speak with any great conviction. I make these comments as an observation not a criticism. I do not think there is anyone at the Cabinet table who continues to believe this is a good idea which should be followed through at this juncture.

If people are genuinely interested in reform, why do they not bring forward reform ideas? The Government has it within its power to reform the Seanad. No one else has the power. In terms of a plan A or plan B, is the Government going to ignore the will of the people if they decide to oppose the referendum and to vote for the retention of the Seanad? Are we to believe the Government will ignore that decision and not then proceed to reform the Seanad? How absurd would that be? Perhaps, we will have a second Seanad referendum to get the Government the result it wants.

I direct the attention of the Minister of State to an opportunity Governments have had for 30 years. The proposal is the 32nd proposal to amend the Constitution. It is a monstrous one which will vandalise and dismantle many articles. The seventh amendment to the Constitution in 1979 authorised the Government to extend the franchise within the Seanad election process to universities across the country. Not one Government since 1979 has seen fit to abide by the will of the people and to follow through on the mandate and instruction the people gave them in the referendum result. What is the purpose or point in having a referendum if the result is to be ignored?

It is not right that the Government continues to ignore the vacancy in the Seanad. The seat must be filled if there is to be any respect for the democratic process. Over the last 20 years, a range of politicians have gone on non-stop about the diaspora. Perhaps, the Taoiseach would like to take the opportunity to fill the vacant seat in the Seanad with a representative of the emigrant community - someone who has experienced having to emigrate? There are 300,000 citizens who have been forced to emigrate in the last five years alone. Would it not be a good idea to fill the vacancy with someone who could speak on their behalf or represent their perspective? There continue to be over 400,000 unemployed people in the country. Would it not be an option for the Taoiseach to nominate an unemployed person or representative of the interests, perspectives and life experiences of the unemployed? Would that not be a worthy perspective to embed in the Seanad to be taken into account in the legislative process. There will be an Oireachtas banking inquiry, which I support. It is not before time. Perhaps, there is an opportunity to fill the vacant Seanad seat with a person with judicial or legal expertise to head up the inquiry in an independent fashion on behalf of the Oireachtas.

There are all sorts of options and opportunities for reform which the Government could grasp if it was so minded. I do not believe it is. The Government has bought into this idea on a knee-jerk basis and is now stuck with it. The Government does not know how to get out of it. As Senator Ó Murchú said, one need only look at the reasons which have been set out. The Government had two years to formulate the Bill yet its proposal is for a hasty referendum in the autumn. I ask the Minister of State to set out the date of the referendum. Senators and the public are entitled to know. Are we going to return in September to be given three weeks' notice? Are we to be ambushed? It would be poor judgment and a poor thing to do. There is no benefit or purpose in this proposal. The Government should adopt Senator Quinn's reasoned amendment and adjourn the process to allow for further debate and consideration in September. The referendum could duly take place next year in tandem with local and European elections and be discussed in the round as part of a reform package. Such an approach would have a number of benefits. It would lead to further consultation and public discourse and save the Government the €20 million price of a costly autumn referendum. Even if the proposal is carried, the Seanad will continue to sit until the next general election. There is no benefit, therefore, to front-loading an autumn referendum.

On the issue of costs, I record for the purposes of accuracy that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission confirmed in its annual report that the direct cost of the Seanad is €8.8 million. While that is a great deal of money, it is not the €20 million or €30 million figure which was unfairly bandied about by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste when they set this process in motion. The Seanad has been unfairly characterised as elitist. It is easy to use that word and to fail to follow up with what one means by it. Is it a reference to the chandeliers in the Chamber? Perhaps, if we changed them to florescent lights and got gaudy curtains as opposed to the nice drapes, people would feel more comfortable.